Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan;88(1045):20140658.
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20140658.

Effective dose of cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton: a systematic review

A Al-Okshi  1 , C Lindh, H Salé, M Gunnarsson, M Rohlin
Affiliations

Effective dose of cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton: a systematic review

A Al-Okshi et al. Br J Radiol. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To estimate effective dose of cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton with focus on measurement methods and scanning protocols.

Methods: A systematic review, which adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) Statement, of the literature up to April 2014 was conducted. Data sources included MEDLINE®, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science. A model was developed to underpin data extraction from 38 included studies.

Results: Technical specifications of the CBCT units were insufficiently described. Heterogeneity in measurement methods and scanning protocols between studies made comparisons of effective doses of different CBCT units and scanning protocols difficult. Few studies related doses to image quality. Reported effective dose varied across studies, ranging between 9.7 and 197.0 μSv for field of views (FOVs) with height ≤5 cm, between 3.9 and 674.0 μSv for FOVs of heights 5.1-10.0 cm and between 8.8 and 1073.0 μSv for FOVs >10 cm. There was an inconsistency regarding reported effective dose of studies of the same CBCT unit with the same FOV dimensions.

Conclusion: The review reveals a need for studies on radiation dosages related to image quality. Reporting quality of future studies has to be improved to facilitate comparison of effective doses obtained from examinations with different CBCT units and scanning protocols. A model with minimum data set on important parameters based on this observation is proposed.

Advances in knowledge: Data important when estimating effective dose were insufficiently reported in most studies. A model with minimum data based on this observation is proposed. Few studies related effective dose to image quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A model presenting the steps for data extraction with different parameters important when analysing radiation dosages in cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton. FOV, field of view; ICRP, International Commission on Radiation Protection.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Flow chart according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) statement presenting study selection process with number of publications identified, excluded and included for systematic review of effective dose of cone beam CT (CBCT) of the facial skeleton.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Box and whisker diagram of effective doses (µSv) of cone beam CT units with three heights of fields of view. ICRP, International Commission on Radiation Protection.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Effective doses (µSv) of different versions of the same cone beam CT unit with the field of view of 8 × 8 cm2 presented in studies published 2008–13. ART, Radiology Support Devices Inc., A Carson, CA; ATOM®, Computerized Imaging Reference System, Norfolk, VA. ICRP, International Commission on Radiation Protection; TLD, thermoluminescent dosemeter.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. European Commission. Radiation protection no. 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. A report prepared by the SEDENTEXCT project. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2011. [Cited 27 November 2014.] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/...
    1. Nemtoi A, Czink C, Haba D, Gahleitner A. Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120443. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20120443 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bushberg JT. Science, radiation protection, and the NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future. In: NCRP Fiftieth Annual Meeting Program; 10–11 March 2014; Bethesda, MD. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. pp. 5–7.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A, Beynon S, Booth A, Burch J, et al. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Vol. III. York, UK: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009. pp. 294.

Publication types